17 “[t]he case of M[aría] I[sabel] V[eliz] F[ranco] was still at the investigation stage.” When admitting the case, the Commission concluded the existence of an unwarranted delay pursuant to Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention.29 In doing so, it took into account a “jurisdictional dispute of almost seven months [that] was had contributed to the unwarranted delay.”30 44. It has already been noted that the State has acknowledged the delay caused by the jurisdictional dispute that occurred between March 11 and November 21, 2002 (supra para. 19 and infra para. 107) – in other words, before the initial petition was lodged. Consequently, and considering that, at that time as well as when the initial petition was lodged and when the Admissibility Report was issued, the investigation into the facts remained in its initial stages, there appears to be no error in the Commission’s decision. Moreover, this is related to the rights established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, which stipulate that proceedings and remedies must be conducted “within a reasonable time” and “prompt[ly],” respectively. Thus, any delay in implementing them could constitute a violation of judicial guarantees. 45. The preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies filed by Guatemala is therefore rejected. VI EVIDENCE 46. Pursuant to the pertinent regulatory norms,31 and its consistent case law,32 the Court will examine and assess the probative elements provided to the case file, whether documentation, statements or expert opinions, based on the principles of sound judicial discretion and taking into account the body of evidence and the arguments submitted in the proceedings. A. Documentary evidence, statements of the presumed victims, and testimonial and expert evidence 47. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representative and the State. It also received the statements of the presumed victims proposed by the representative, namely: Rosa Elvira Franco, Leonel Enrique Veliz Franco and José Roberto Franco, of the witness Luisa María de León Santizo, proposed by the representative, and of the expert witnesses Ana Carcedo Cabañas, María Eugenia Solís García, Rodolfo Kepfer Rodríguez and José Mario Nájera Ochoa, proposed by the representative. On April 15, 2013, the Commission advised that it withdrew the expert evidence of Elizabeth Salmón, because, owing to prior professional commitments that could not be postponed, she would be unable to appear at the public hearing. B. Admission of the documentary evidence 48. In this case, as in others,33 the Court admits those documents provided by the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity that were not contested or challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned, exclusively to the extent that they are pertinent and useful for determining the facts and their eventual legal consequences. 29 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 92/06, supra. 30 Admissibility Report No. 92/06, supra. 31 Cf. Articles 46, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 32 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 51, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 23. 33 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux, supra, para. 25.